What makes a good photograph ?

[Allen Herbert]

A thousand words.

 

Just does not do it.

[Allen Herbert]

[Allen Herbert]

Good night and God bless.

[Allen Herbert]

Not a good photo

Boring., as boring as boring can be. Sorry.

What would you like me to say?

Just for you.

A photo talking.

 

 

[Allen Herbert]

Not the above to my mind.

A banality.

[inoneeye]

Allen once again please do not post my photos.

[inoneeye]

👍 The photo I asked Allen not to post this time has been removed by a moderator.

[Tony Parsons]

This, to me, has relevance to the subject :

 

 

 

My ex- parents in law thought that any photo not containing people was a waste of film.

 

 

[mikemorrellNL]

7 hours ago, tony_parsons1 said:

This, to me, has relevance to the subject :
(Kinks: People Take Pictures of Each Other)

My ex- parents in law thought that any photo not containing people was a waste of film.

@tony_parsons1 I loved many of the Kinks' songs (and their sound!) but I'd never heard this one before. I had to look up the 'fast, breathless' lyrics but both the lyrics and their 'fast and breathless performance' are even more applicable today  - and IMHO by a factor of thousands - than when they were first written and recorded! Thanks for your - to me - very relevant comment on the subject!

Mike

Edited November 12, 2022 by mikemorrellNL

[Tony Parsons]

Slightly at a tangent to the original post - how many people actually take photos to post in threads in NW, as opposed to choosing something relevant from their (extensive) libraries, I wonder ?

[mikemorrellNL]

@tony_parsons1: Good question! As far as I remember (many years back and then as a PN novice), I questioned the NW forum because the posted images couldn't be searched on. They were - and still are - 'ephemeral' images.

Again, in my recollection, the response that I got at the time was that some PN members were no longer able to go out and take new photos. So the NW forum was a way in which all PN members - based on their archived photos - could continue to participate.

Just speaking for myself, I never take new photos to post in NW. In fact, I very rarely post in NW. The only exceptions are when specific topics suddenly trigger an association with one of my 'archived' photos. I don't always have the time or motivation to post the photo, but occasionally I do. 

For the record, I fully agree that NW is by far the most popular PN forum. But IMHO also the least relevant forum for photography  and especially for the future of photography.

Mike

[samstevens]

58 minutes ago, tony_parsons1 said:

Slightly at a tangent to the original post - how many people actually take photos to post in threads in NW, as opposed to choosing something relevant from their (extensive) libraries, I wonder ?

I haven't been participating in No Words very regularly for a while now but I did for a couple of years. I did about 50% finding photos in my archives to submit and 50% going out to shoot for a theme. Both were challenging and productive. When going through my archives, I came across many shots I'd set aside whose potential I had not seen and wound up with several keepers that I might not otherwise have gone back to. Shooting for a theme became a genuinely inspiring activity, and also a source of some new, good photos. I often tried to interpret themes loosely, which could be a lot of fun. What I learned is that there are all kinds of ways to think about photos and my ways of taking them, different degrees of subjective influence and outside influence, and many ways to get my photographic juices flowing. 

[PapaTango]

2 hours ago, tony_parsons1 said:

....how many people actually take photos to post in threads in NW, as opposed to choosing something relevant from their (extensive) libraries, I wonder ?

This is a thought that has run through my head many times in the past year.  

Frankly, how I end up with photographs is historically quite aimless!  Except for things I was being paid for or an event, I and my camera(s) never left the house with a 'theme' or directive in mind.  And then I can't tell you how many thousands of shots I have lost over the decades due to the fact I was too lazy to carry a camera with me.  

But as we know, nothing is totally random.  What I would end up with was and always will be dictated by environment I am inhabiting.  So what passes as curated collections (thematic groups) is really the result of gravitating toward certain environments.  Now that I have rambled on semi-coherently about this, here is how it applies for me to NW.

Yes, I admit it.  I am here to show off a bit among people who have gotten used to me and my stuff.  I am here to see what they are seeing out in their parts of the world.  And better yet, I quickly learn what I am ignoring or not seeing in my own work!  This is a good thing on many levels.

For all its ephemeral nature, NW invites me daily to look at what I have--things not only in my stable of PSD 'print ready' images, but back amongst my many thousands of images from the past--to find something that matches a topic.  I too have not taken a photo specifically for an NW thread--but have later expanded my visual horizon to include something from that content and/or genre.

Whatever its labeled function really is, let's agree that it is a fun place and can serve deeper needs for photographers to consider images!

[Gerald Cafferty]

5 hours ago, tony_parsons1 said:

Slightly at a tangent to the original post - how many people actually take photos to post in threads in NW, as opposed to choosing something relevant from their (extensive) libraries, I wonder ?

I have taken photo's especially for NW posts but only if I have been able to do it the house or garden. What I do is take photo's of random things when I'm out and about thinking that's obscure enough to become a theme for NW.  I tend not to start threads I leave that to Luis and Sanford who are much better at than me.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Gerald Cafferty

[Wayne Melia]

On 4/23/2022 at 10:50 AM, mikemorrell said:

 

 

One major differentiation, it seems to me, lies in the photographer having a more deliberate intention.

 

The intention (possibly agreed with a client) often leads to the preparation for and design of a photoshoot. This applies also to the intention, preparation for, and design of individual photos.

 

T

 

Intention is key. eg. a photo as illustration of assembly in an instruction manual is good if it illustrates the process; artistic merits of composition, balance, etc. are irrelevent. Similarly, forensic evidence photography is for recording evidence....

Edited November 13, 2022 by Wayne Melia
typo

[Ricochetrider]

What makes a good photograph... ? Indeed.

Sometimes I see work beig displayed and wonder exactly this. OK there are "rules", but I've seen shots that were undoubtedly technically perfect but boring as heck. Pressed to put it into words, I cannot say what it is that excites me in a photo, possibly that varies as wildly as does the number of people shooting and the subject matter captured. If I had to really nail it down, probably the shots that really get my attention are either of things dear to me, or by photographers whose work I admire- many of whom I may wish to emulate in my own photography.  

Oh, and I almost always post in NW out of my archives. If I ever did shoot something specifically for a post there, it was a fast shot with my phone, probably at home.

To address a point made by @mikemorrell, RE: people all taking the same shots... I attend vintage motorcycle & car events where there are large numbers of people shooting the same things. At some of these, I'm on the "inside" and may have access that's limited in some way to the general population-  but at other events, I'm "out there" with everyone else. I make an effort to shoot things differently from others and when all is said & done, I really enjoy seeing our individual perspectives on whatever it is we have all seen & shot (edit: thank you, instagram and social media sites).

Good photography, IMO comes from the heart and "feeling" a shot is as important an aspect of technique, as any other.  I honestly feel like the more advanced photographer is able to project their own personality into their shots. Choice of gear, cameras, lenses, technique, processing, post processing... all evolutionary elements wrought thru time and experience. We go thru cameras and gear until it all "clicks" and we've found what we like to give us what we feel is necessary to our "look"- but moreover we've found that camera/lens combo that give us what we need out of it all, be it a tactile interaction or something more amorphous. In a perfect wold, all things align to create a shot that captures not only a moment in time, but also has its own fingerprint or signature look to it.   

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Ricochetrider

[mikemorrellNL]

I once took a couple of basic courses in photography and since then I've read a few 'how to' books. IMHO, what makes a 'good' photograph is finally decided by its viewers. Professional 'reviewers/curators' might also play an important role in assessing the value of a photo

Most of what I've learned about photography (and almost never applied myself 🙂 ) was from the British photographer Michael Freeman. It's been a few years, but his initial books (with his own photographic examples) on 'the photographer's eye',  'the photographer's mind' and 'the photographer's vision' really opened my 'photographic eyes'.

In his third book , the 'photographer's vision' - which I swapped for a bass guitar amp and need to buy again- -he gives a summary of the criteria that - for him - contribute to a 'good photo'.

So, although I completely agree that agreement on what constitutes a 'good photograph' primarily rests on viewers and secondarily on the photographer, it's worth considering other photographer's opinions such as Michael Freeman.

Edited November 17, 2022 by mikemorrellNL

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

people shooting the same things

I think what often makes a good photo is what's considered about or in addition to the thing photographed. So, when one is taking a pic of a car, for example, one may simply want a good shot to document a special car. Nothing wrong with that. Someone else might be taking a pic of the light rays going through the windshield or the reflections on the hood or the nostalgia felt by being in the presence of a classic or the actual classicism of the classic. Someone else may find the environment the car is in worth emphasizing or, at the other extreme, an abstract or closeup detail that may not even telegraph it's a car. It's often as much if not more about how one "describes" the thing to themselves (whether with words or just emotions and gut feeling) and then how one sees it photographically which imbues it with personality and interest.

[Allen Herbert]

A good photo just works for the majority of folk. There's no mystic reason, or special mathematical formulae'

Let us call it Art. Art, a mystery to itself.

[conrad_hoffman]

On 11/13/2022 at 3:47 PM, Wayne Melia said:

Intention is key. eg. a photo as illustration of assembly in an instruction manual is good if it illustrates the process; artistic merits of composition, balance, etc. are irrelevent. Similarly, forensic evidence photography is for recording evidence....

IMHO, not entirely true. I take a lot of this type of image and always try to have some tonal balance and a pleasing aesthetic. Without that, manuals can be jarring to the eye and harder to follow. Great art? Probably not!

[Ambro51]

Grabs an instant.      Leica IIIc, a bit of digital tweak to a print. 

[Allen Herbert]

A good photograph.

 

[Allen Herbert]

Show yours and why you think it is a good photograph.

Don't be modest shy. 

[AlanKlein]

Luck.  When you think of all the pictures let's say HCB took, it's always the same ones you keep seeing over and over again.  Out of hundreds of thousands of shots, they get about two dozen, maybe.  

[za33photo]

There are as many opinions of what a "good" photograph is , as there are people on this little planet.

But the "Critics" and self styled "Experts" 😇 have enormous influence (it has always been like this) , and tend to carry the day.

😁😁.